Trump's Right - NATO Is Obsolete For The US

Donald Trump deeply upset the Europeans when he raised the possibility that NATO is obsolete and that the European Union is failing.

But this isn’t the first time these issues have been discussed. I wrote about it last year, and the conversation has only continued.

What Trump has done is simply bring into the open the question of Europe’s relationship with the US.

The missions and motives of NATO and the EU

NATO was an alliance with a single purpose: to protect Western Europe from a Soviet invasion.

The basic structure of NATO didn’t change when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. It simply grew to include the former Soviet satellite states and the Baltic states.

The motive behind the expansion was to bring these countries into the framework of the Western defense system in order to give them confidence in their independence. And help support the development of democracies.

The motivation was roughly the same for expanding the EU. The bloc was primarily an economic union. Simply being an EU member was believed to enhance prosperity, so that even the economically weakest country would become strong after attaining membership.

The real goal was to expand the EU as far as possible. As with NATO, EU expansion had less to do with the EU’s primary mission than with political and ideological factors.

NATO is obsolete if it can’t support the US’ interests

The EU question is ultimately a European problem.

But NATO is an alliance. The US has important and legitimate interests. But there are questions.

First, with the Soviet Union gone, what is NATO’s purpose?

Second, how does NATO serve the American national interest?

Third, given that the EU has almost as large a GDP and almost 200 million more people than the US, why isn’t its collective contribution to NATO’s military larger than the US?

The automatic answer to the first question is fairly basic: NATO’s purpose is to guarantee its members’ security.

On the second question, it cannot be argued that NATO has served American interests since 1991.

It is true that NATO’s area of responsibility is focused on Europe. The US’ current wars are outside of this area. But from the American point of view, having an alliance with a region where large-scale warfare is unlikely makes little sense.

NATO must evolve with the needs of its members. If it can’t, it can be seen (as Trump put it) as obsolete.

This brings us to the third question, the size of the European force. A military alliance needs a military.

Many European countries, in times of wealth as well as constraint, have chosen not to create a force large enough to support American interests.

Even when NATO commits to fighting alongside the Americans, European capabilities limit their contribution. There is no automatic support from NATO. The countries that want to participate, fight with as much or as little as they choose to send.

This is their right as sovereign states. But this radically changes their relationships with the US. They would participate in a US-led war if it was in their self-interests.

Nations have the right and obligation to carry out their foreign and military policies as they wish. But an alliance holds nations to behave in a certain way given certain events.

NATO is obsolete if it defines its responsibility mainly to repel a Russian invasion. Especially since it refused to create a military force capable of doing that. It is obsolete in that it regards the US as the guarantor of Europe’s security when Europe is quite capable of incurring the cost of self-defense.

If European nations are free to follow their own interests, then so is the United States.

When we step back, we see a broader truth. First, the European Union is breaking. Europe is in no position to do unanimously supported NATO operations. For the Europeans, NATO is important because it means that, in the rare chance of a European war, the US must be there.

The United States wants to stop Russian hegemony over the European Peninsula. But the US can deal with that by placing limited forces in the Baltics, Poland, and Romania. The Europeans have devolved NATO into bilateral relations between the US and each NATO member. So, the United States can do the same. Also, the US can accept the status quo in Ukraine, written or unwritten. The US is not going to war in Ukraine. Russia is not going to war there either.

Trump’s approach to NATO has been forced on the US by the Europeans. NATO doesn’t work as an alliance. It is a group of sovereign nations that will respond to American requests as they see fit. The US knows this and at some point, someone was going to point out that NATO is obsolete.

It is not clear that there is a geopolitical basis for this commitment any more. Interests have diverged. NATO is not suited to the realities of today.

* * *

This riveting weekly newsletter by global-intelligence guru George Friedman gives you an in-depth view of the hidden forces that drive world events and markets. You’ll learn that economic trends, social upheaval, stock market cycles, and more… are all connected to powerful geopolitical currents that most of us aren’t even aware of. Get This Week in Geopolitics free in your inbox every Monday.

Not entirely correct, the EU exists as a CIA construct to make it easier to rule over vassal Europe via a single State instead of having to deal with 28 diffferent Governments.

If that paradigm no longer exists because the US now wants to "Yankee go home" to take care of its own business and let the rest of the world mind its own businhess too, with which I completely agree, then the MIC Complex is fucked (which is why they hate Trump so much).

So now NATO will be replaced to some extent by a European security apparatus which will enrich the EU MIC at the expense of European, no longer American, taxpayers. That is, so long as the whole EU construct still survives, which, IMHO, isn't very long.

Either way, Europe is big enough to take care of itself and pay for its own defense. WWII finished 70 years ago and I think Trump understands that the US could continue to dominate Europe using the US Dollar reserve currency printing. For a while longer at least. But that is also growing old and tired, especially with all the US Debt.

George Friedman seems to be writing to a shallow, mainstream audience. He doesn't even touch the more important contemporary issues such as those addressed immediately in the first couple of comments above, the most important involving the modern distinction between the people of that nation-state that we call the United States of America and the separate, tumor-like entity known as the Military Industrial Complex. The problematique faced by the almost-completely self-serving MIC as we enter the 21st century is the need for a "Suitable Enemy." All the old tricks are exposed. Everybody here is well aware of all the false flags seen in recent years and the related attempt to gin up enemies and bogeymen. Other branches of disconnected government stand exposed for similar tactics, like the "Global Warming" hoax. What I think we're going to see more of in years ahead is a dynamic of increasing tension between parts of a nation's government that purport to stand up for their traditional and limited national mandates and interests versus those of the globalista and psychopathia in positions of power, that are completely at odds with simple and traditional popular concepts like nationalism and morality. Stock up on popcorn, because the attempts to twist things and foist divergent narratives are going to create a very confusing environment for truth-seekers.

Global climate is influenced by human activates such as pollution and technology, nuclear waste being one of them.

Your statement about traditionalists versus power is, socially speaking, a correct statement, but, morally speaking, the traditionalists don’t have a leg to stand on, because their immorality is supported by a religion that gives cover to them. So, the traditionalist are no better.

Also, the traditionalists do twists things, because as power, they too are ideologues, meaning, they have strong believes and goals that they don’t, actually, can’t compromise so cooperation is impossible.

Granted, everybody has an axe to grind, and government at all levels seems to be a magnet for ideologues and scum. But I think you'll agree that a small governmental tumor is comparatively easier to wrestle down than the massive instruments of overreach that we witness today. The octopus is not going to cede power. Conflict is already begun, exemplifed by things like the biological warfare that we call the "Muslim Migration," and it's going to get a LOT more violent and messy.

Thanks for an accurate post. We need more like this and less ideologies —idioticy.

Now, I don’t see Trump cutting NATO, because the US military industrial complex would be facing a depression. Trump, as a shrewd businessman, just want to have others pay for it. How do you think fortunes and power are created? By exploiting others.

Friedman is a globalist stooge who is trying to hang onto jon with Mauldin's group - he doesn't believe what he has typed up here. It's more unelected global government for all - because masses don't know any better.

I wonder about the gypsies. I am considering selling everything I own: The Harleys, the cars, the gunsnammo and the gold and silver. I just want to wander around the planet. I don't think the Russian woman/wife will go along with that idea. I did make a commitment to her.

Power and wealth really isn't what I am looking for. I am not sure what I am looking for but I will slowly find it. I already found a woman in Russia. That was a good deal.

I guess I just really wonder why we all hate each other because of gods that do not exist.

Trek the globe my friends. And don't be a tourist. A Russian birthday party is not a tourist thing. Learn the people and customs.

@ Manipuflation: ++++. Recognizing through first-hand experience that regular, upstanding people in other countries just want to raise their children, live their lives and be left alone is very helpful for keeping perspective and cutting through dishonest third-party narratives that would otherwise take advantage of ignorance.

I guess I just really wonder why we all hate each other because of gods that do not exist.

i think you have hit the nail on the head (so hard the nail needs no second blow and is flush to the surrounding wood). an observer would say "perfect strike with that 16 oz hammer".

because it is the ultimate weakness of humans, exploited by humans. pass the plate so i can shit in it...

so in simplistic terms, we are as a species all going have to take a side or do as you suggest wander like nomads to avoid the conflicts and seek peoples that don't want to partake, which ironically is the majority.

Ghordo at the peak of his game is worth two tank armies in the war of common sense against media dissimulation.

The wars that matter in the US are being fought on behalf of a sole beneficiary which contributes \ZERO/ to the effort, and in fact sloughs off the biggest share of America's "aid" expenditures in the world's largest extortion racket.

Never forget that "George Friedman," no matter how and where he is "repackaged" in neutral guise, is the Stratfor sionist-in-chief whose job has been for years to bamboozle gullible westerners into buying into the "tiny outpost of democracy in the middle east" myth. Mauldin at some point last year dropped the association of Stratfor and Friedman in articles appearing under the latter's name. Who's fooling who?

His new "Geopolitical Futures looks to be the new "GATESTONE INSTITUTE" for the Trumpian Era upon us. Subtle is the new neo-con. Same ol same ol.

The onus is not on Europe to change, the onus is on the US to massively reduce its corrupt to the core MIC. The chart above alone should be clear enough to anyone with half a brain cell that something is not quite right - with the US.

Watch the excellent documentary Why We Fight, or read Chalmers Johnson if you want/need education on the subject.

The EU is the political wing of NATO. The USA or CIA was in at the start of both. Germany couldn't care less if either disappear. For them it's a numbers game: Less women have been raped by Muslim immigrants than by the Allies during the occupation.

NATO exists to remind them that the rapes and attrocities will start up again. A very expensive reminder.

Germany couldn't care less if EU disappeared? Boy what have you been drinking. EU is yet another German attempt to conquer Europe financially this time - and it's a failure again. When this falls apart, watch out Europe - it's going to leave a mark on collective booty of Europe and europeons. W

NATO serves one purpose only and that is act as a mercinary army for rogue capitalist interests.

But I agree, let's get rid of NATO. America off the European continent and an European army including nuclear weapons but not under the control of the EU. European countries should pay up for that. Let's see what happens if Europe asks America to leave though...

The globalists have been using NATO as a tool to expand their political agenda eastward and they need NATO badly now to reach their final political goals.

To prevent Trump and other non-globalist American politicians from interfering they needed to keep the cold war and the Russian threat alive, because without this threat, they would have had nothing to bargain with to stop Trump.

That's why they are so desperate to demonize Russia and to keep Trump from normalizing the relationship. If Trump and Russia normalized the relationship and forms bilateral alliances without the globalists being able to control them, it's game over for the new world order.

Cut the crap whatever is at work, it is worse than your Jewish conspiracy crappy rant. Look at a map, and think (harder I mean).

A persian type of empire running from Pakistan to Iran, an ottoman empire taking over the south of Russia and european orthodox land, a Fatimide Empire taking most of the left over of Europe. Then China, a more and more insulated and weak Russia, China being China, a Canada failing or fallen, same for the US...

Explain me again how that is supposed to work within your Jewish run greater cabbal? They will be back to Dhimmi status and forget about "ISraël", that is if they live...

So, after 20 years of using nato as american banhammer all over them planet it's Europe's fault?

But, without it you could not spew the words like "international coalition", "support from our allies", "whole word is united against these evil dictators"...or get that chapter 5 or 6 that enables you AS RESPONISBLE TO PROTECT hence bombs away!

The cost to the USA, in comparison to other members, is irrelevant. NATO exits to give the USA's unilateral exceptionalism an air of respectability on a global stage. Previous administrations realised that going it alone, versus for example Iraq and Afghanistan, would be unpalatable. Far better to broadcast a unified global consensus versus the phantom enemies of the military industrial complex.